SIRI RAM BATRA AND ORS. versus FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 470 · Decided: 17-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SIRI RAM BATRA AND ORS. 
v. 
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, DELHI AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 17, 2004 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] 
East Punjab Holding (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) 
Act, 1948-Section 36-Proviso to Amended scheme of Consolidation-
Benefit of Beshi Phirni Old bhumidars-Held, bhumidars not having interest 
C 
in land at the time of amendment, not entitled to benefit of scheme. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Interpretation of Statutes-A statute has to be read and understood 
meaningfully and purposefully in the context of the object or purpose it seeks 
to achieve. 
The land of Respondent No. 4 was included in the phirni (Laldora) 
when the original Scheme of consolidation was brought into force in the 
year 1987. As per the Scheme he was allotted three time~ area of 
agricultural land in lieu of field No. 1244. The area so allotted was 
comprised in field Nos. 28/12, 28/19 and 28/22. In the year 1988 
respondent No.4 sold his land in Killa No.28/22 measuring 4 bighas and 
9 biswas to Respondent No.3. The Consolidation Officer, by his order 
dated 25.3.1992, allotted equal area forming Killa Nos. 102/19 and 102/ 
20 to respondent No.3 in lieu of Killa No.28/22, which was included in 
Laldora consequent to the amendment of the Scheme of consolidation. 
Respondent No.3 filed a revision petition before the Financial 
Commissioner, Delhi under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holding 
(Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 on the ground 
that the Consolidation Officer had committed an error in not extending 
the benefit of Beshi Phirni to him by not allotting him three times of the 
value of his 
land 
included 
within 
the phirni as per 
the amended Scheme. The Consolidation Officer stated that the 
Beshi Phirni as a result of the inclusion of Killa No. 28/22 within the 
extended phirni had been given to the appellants on the ground that 
Killa No.28/22 actually formed the pre-consolidation Khasra No.324, 
which was in their bhumidari, that the benefit of Beshi Phirni had to be 
H 
given to the previous/original bhumidars and that respondent No.3 was 
470 
SIRI RAM BATRA v. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER 
471 
not entitled to such benefit as he had purchased the land in question, 
A 
which was mutated in his name much after the formation of the original 
Scheme. The appellants-old bhumidars were impleaded as parties to the 
revision petition. The Financial Commissioner allowed the claim of 
respondent No.3. Writ Petition filed by Appellants was dismissed. The 
Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed. 
B 
Before this Court Appellants contended that on the basis of the 
amended Scheme issued under Section 36 of the Act they being old 
bhumidars were entitled for the benefit as a result of inclusion of the 
land in Killa No.28/22, that respondent No.3 was not the old bhumidar 
and that under the Scheme the Appellants were entitled for the benefit, 
C 
if any meaning is to be given to the use of the words "old bhumidars" 
(Sabik Bhumidars). 
Respondent No. 3 contended that the Courts below have correctly 
interpreted the scheme in holding that the benefit was available under 
the Scheme to respondent No. 3, and that to interpret the scheme 
otherwise would lead to an absurdity and/or that rules of interpretation 
of statutes do not permit such an interpretation to be given. 
Dismissing the Appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The interpretation placed on Annexure P-1 by the 
Financial Commissioner, as affirmed by the Single Judge as well as by 
the Division Bench of the High Court, is a correct interpretation. The 
appellants having lost their rights over the land bearing Khasra 
No. 324 and having got the land No. 679 in lieu of it, do not have any 
right or interest over the land bearing Khasra No. 324 so as to claim 
any benefit under the amended Scheme as bhumidars when they no 
more remained bhumidars on the relevant date and under Annexure P-
l the benefit is to be given to persons, who lost their lands, to compensate 
them. The appellants did not lose any land under the new Scheme on 
account of extended Laldora. The original bhumidar in relation to the 
land in Killa No.28/22 would be respondent No. 4. (478-C, DJ 
2. It is absurd that a person who no longer has any right in Plot 
D 
E 
F 
G 
No. 324 must still get benefit of the amendment. To accept such a 
submission would lead to unjustness and unfairness. No rules of 
interpretation can permit such an interpretation to be given. [477-F, G) 
H 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.